Medicine as a science utilizes a method of study that focuses on consequences of actions, on causes and effects in nature. These facts about how bodies heal, or how drugs work, are sometimes confused with medicine’s ethical imperative to bring about good consequences for the patient, or at least reduce harmful consequences. Concerns tend to arise when there is friction between the facts and values.

The article’s claim? “For centuries, it was assumed that a good decision ethically in medicine was the same as a good clinical decision.” This translates to life-or-death related situations can result in more death-related outcomes, all because it doesn’t clinically make for a good decision. The integrity and moral code is pushed aside as the life of a human is based on whether or not “clinically” they should be saved, when in reality, doctor’s know the technology can do it.

This topic can be tied into consequentialism in that doctors perform an action (saving a life or not) that yields the highest ratio of good to bad results. Furthermore, attractions of utilitarianism justifies conventional moral wisdom: a doctor not intervening in saving the life of someone who suffered a heart attack is wrong because that makes people (very) unhappy.

To dive further into the consequentialism attribution to this article, consequentialism is defined as holding that the consequences of one’s conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. In an extreme form, the idea of consequentialism is commonly encapsulated in the saying, “the end justifies the means”, meaning that if a goal is morally important enough, any method of achieving it is acceptable.

The “goal” for doctor’s in this dilemma is deciding if it is clinically right to save a life, even if morally and ethically it is. The pros and cons here outweigh the life of a human. Simply put, to save the doctor and the hospital from using equipment inefficiently to just “try” and show that they morally still want to save the life of someone, though they know there’s little that can actually be done. This move has been controversial, especially if doctors put the inefficient use of equipment ahead of a life, to be “clinically” correct.

“In the 1950’s, tobacco companies responded to research proving a link between smoking and lung cancer by trying to discredit the science. They formed their own research group to poke holes in the data and to stave off public panic that cigarette smoking could cause serious diseases and death. More than 60 years later, the NHL has responded to a class-action lawsuit regarding head injuries with a similar approach.”

With scientists proving that concussions are directly correlated with the clinical symptoms of C.T.E., it is hard for the NHL to disprove any facts. The NFL – a very familiar opponent of concussion debates – has even recognized the link and has (somewhat) taken action to improve based on these scientific facts.

The State of Nature (Law of Nature) indicates that a rational rule forbids man to do anything destructive to his own life or means of preserving it – a thought experiment – which show responsibilities between differences such as right or wrong. The NHL’s problem with science is a responsibility of right and wrong, and the NHL is in the wrong because of their ignorant and oblivious actions to reject the scientific evidence that has been available for the last few years.

Furthermore, the NHL’s position on C.T.E.’s also contrasts to Mill’s Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is defined as an ethical theory that states that the best action is the one that maximizes utility. “Utility” is defined in various ways, usually in terms of the well-being of sentient entities, such as human beings and other animals. The well-being of the players in the NHL are in the hands of NHL executives. More specifically Gary Bettman, the league commissioner. With this law suit directly correlating the long-term effects of concussions being dismissed by the individual who runs the entire league, it means minimizing the utility of the players that it directly effects.

Utilitarianism is a version of consequentialism, which states that the consequences of any action are the only standard of right and wrong. Unlike other forms of consequentialism, such as egoism, utilitarianism considers all interests equally. This attribution of utilitarianism and the explicit wrong of this situation in terms of the NHL’s stance on staying away from pursuing better C.T.E. protocol at the expense of money rather than the well-being of their players is shocking.

This past Tuesday, the face of the program, Hillary Knight, and the U.S. Women’s National Hockey Team announced via Twitter that they will not play in this year’s IIHF Women’s World Championship in Plymouth, Michigan, until “significant progress” is made with USA Hockey over fair wages and equitable support. The tournament starts March 31, and the U.S. is the host.

The team has asked USA Hockey for equitable support as required by the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act. Specifically, they have asked for support in the areas of financial compensation, youth team development, equipment, travel expenses, hotel accommodations, meals, staffing, transportation, marketing and publicity. These issues and concerned are all covered in full and more with their male counterparts.

The goals of their requests are to achieve fair treatment from USA Hockey, to initiate the appropriate steps to correct the outlined issues, and to move forward with a shared goal of promoting and growing girls and women in the sport while representing the United States in future competitions, including the IIHF Women’s World Championship.

The normative theory in play is Hobbes’ social contract theory, as well as the role of utilitarianism. An action will then be said to be “right” as long as it satisfactorily causes good consequences compared to alternative actions, and it will be “wrong” if it doesn’t. Utilitarianism doesn’t discriminate or encourage egoism. It is wrong to harm others to benefit yourself or another area such as this (being the male counterparts) because everyone counts. However the argument at stake is that what the women’s team produces in terms of a fanbase and spectator revenue is not nearly the same as the men’s team, at any level. Sports is all about money, and for there to be equal pay it’s a very touchy area to succeed in. However, by doing the right thing and paying these women athletes who do the same as their male counterparts is morally correct and abides by what the social contract theory stands for, although there is much to be lost in what areas prosper to keep the program alive.

A wide slew of EPA programs could be under the knife to meet President Donald Trump’s budget proposal requirements. The proposal would cut the EPA’s budget by 24% and reduce its staffing by 20%. Some of the EPA’s most longstanding and best-known programs are facing potential elimination — including initiatives aimed at improving water and air quality as well as a number of regulations tasked with the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.

This move by the Trump administration fails to fit any real ethical win, for the majority of the problems the EPA could face are problems the world needs addressed as soon as possible. According to Kant, “goodwill” is a good volition or intention — if it is rational. Upon doing something from duty vs. in accordance with duty is doing something because it is the right thing to do vs. doing the right thing because of some other inclination.

Trump’s administration claims that by cutting certain EPA programs helps the economy by cutting spending “on an office that runs up much cost”, while leaving room to put together a budget that calls for a more than $50 billion increase in defense spending. To “balance” that, they’ve proposed an equal cut to non-defense spending to counter. In any relationship to Kant’s goodwill, the Trump Administration seems to have none, for they are putting forth efforts that may sound necessary for one department (one that protects Americans solely) versus a department that protects the Earth we live on and affects all lives in the world (not just Americans).

The inclination for Trump’s Administration to administer such a drastic cut to the EPA is not for the betterment of society or that of the world as a whole. Our Department of Defense does need it’s upgrades, however we must address the more important of the two as to taking action in saving the world we live in. Otherwise, those new defense proposals won’t be used if we don’t have an Earth (very, very drastic comparison, but you get the point).

One Uber manager groped female co-workers’ breasts at a company retreat in Las Vegas. A director shouted a homophobic slur at a subordinate during a heated confrontation in a meeting. Another manager threatened to beat an underperforming employee’s head in with a baseball bat. The internal communications of Uber and its employees brings to question the overall integrity, safety, and intrinsically valuable relationships Uber has established with the people that work for them.

Integrity is defined as the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness. This is old news in what makes a company ethical or unethical, similarly to Uber and their current situation. More recently, comparisons to Uber’s employee-executive relationships can be made to the state of nature by Hobbes.

The state of nature, according to Hobbes in his piece Leviathan, is a state of equal hope in achieving our goals; like a thought experiment that shows responsibility between differences such as right and wrong. Not only that but the state of nature is a state of perfect liberty: freedom for positive and freedom from negative. Under that state we have the law of nature, where Uber’s aggressive work culture violates the very rights.

The law of nature is a rational rule which forbids man to do anything destructive to his or another’s life or means of preserving it. However, we don’t live this way because it is more rational to give up some liberty to gain safety and security. Therefore, shouldn’t employees of Uber be given this safety and security by giving up some of their liberty to be considered employees of the company? For fact, these employees and Uber signed contracts, both physically and morally. Uber is acting very irrational with their work culture which directly violates the state of nature and law of nature that protects the very thought of human life in safety and security, making the best of decisions and understanding what is truly right and wrong.

So can Uber’s work culture turn around? Can they see that these aggressive acts of violence and inappropriate motives can reverb into dangerous things. Safety and security is everything people want in the workplace, from those at the top to those at the bottom. Uber must protect those in its core and adjust to comply with the correct moral beliefs that create sustainable and efficient work culture.

Medicine as a science utilizes a method of study that focuses on consequences of actions, on causes and effects in nature. These facts about how bodies heal, or how drugs work, are sometimes confused with medicine’s ethical imperative to bring about good consequences for the patient, or at least reduce harmful consequences. Concerns tend to arise when there is friction between the facts and values.

The article’s claim? “For centuries, it was assumed that a good decision ethically in medicine was the same as a good clinical decision.” This translates to life-or-death related situations can result in more death-related outcomes, all because it doesn’t clinically make for a good decision. The integrity and moral code is pushed aside as the life of a human is based on whether or not “clinically” they should be saved, when in reality, doctor’s know the technology can do it.

This topic can be tied into consequentialism in that doctors perform an action (saving a life or not) that yields the highest ratio of good to bad results. Furthermore, attractions of utilitarianism justifies conventional moral wisdom: a doctor not intervening in saving the life of someone who suffered a heart attack is wrong because that makes people (very) unhappy.

To dive further into the consequentialism attribution to this article, consequentialism is defined as holding that the consequences of one’s conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. In an extreme form, the idea of consequentialism is commonly encapsulated in the saying, “the end justifies the means”, meaning that if a goal is morally important enough, any method of achieving it is acceptable.

The “goal” for doctor’s in this dilemma is deciding if it is clinically right to save a life, even if morally and ethically it is. The pros and cons here outweigh the life of a human. Simply put, to save the doctor and the hospital from using equipment inefficiently to just “try” and show that they morally still want to save the life of someone, though they know there’s little that can actually be done. This move has been controversial, especially if doctors put the inefficient use of equipment ahead of a life, to be “clinically” correct.